On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 01:21:41PM +0200, David L. Moreno wrote: > This bug report lacks any proper description of the problem and no > hints of how to solve it. This is especially relevant as it comes from > an experienced Debian Developer, from whom I would have expected a > helpuful bug report.
7.6. Relationships between source and binary packages - `Build-Depends',
`Build-Depends-Indep', `Build-Conflicts', `Build-Conflicts-Indep'
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source packages that require certain binary packages to be installed
or absent at the time of building the package can declare
relationships to those binary packages.
This is done using the `Build-Depends', `Build-Depends-Indep',
`Build-Conflicts' and `Build-Conflicts-Indep' control file fields.
Package: kimdaba
Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 4.0.0), docbook-to-man (>= 2 ), base-files (>= 3.1
), binutils (>= 2.15-4 ), coreutils (>= 5.2.1-2 ), gettext (>= 0.14.1-5 ),
kdelibs4, kdelibs4-dev, libacl1, libart-2.0-2, libattr1, libaudio2, libexpat1,
libfam0c102, libfontconfig1, libfreetype6, libgcc1, libice6, libice-dev,
libidn11, libncurses5, libpng12-0,libpng12-dev, libqt3c102-mt, libqt3-mt-dev,
libsm6, libsm-dev, libx11-6, libx11-dev, libxcursor1, libxext6, libxext-dev,
libxft2, libxrandr2, libxrender1, libxt6, xutils (>= 4.3.0.dfsg.1-6 ), zlib1g
(>= 1 ), zlib1g-dev (>= 1 )
Do you really think that kimdaba requires the binary packages kdelibs4,
libacl1, libart-2.0-2, libattr1, libgcc1, libice6, libidn11,
libncurses5, libpng12-0, libqt3c102-mt, libsm6, libx11-6, libxcursor1,
libxext6, libxft2, libxrandr2, libxrender1, libxt6, and zlib1g in order
to build!? You mean the *source* package contains files which look for
each of these shared libraries *directly*? These packages provide *no*
facilities that are relevant to building packages. They include no
header files, no .so or .a files that can be used by ld, and no (or very
few) executables. Why do you build-depend on them?
It's slightly more credible that you could need versioned
build-dependencies on base-files, binutils, coreutils, gettext, and
xutils; but in this context, they appear to be just a few more randomly
selected (or automatically generated?) build-dependencies. And I can't
imagine why, for instance,
base-files (3.1) unstable; urgency=high
* Changed issue, issue.net and debian_version to read "3.1".
-- Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mon, 26 Jul 2004 20:25:32 +0200
is relevant to your package's build...
What's particularly disappointing is that you've already had one
previous bug report complaining about bogus build-dependencies (bug
#300309), but rather than leading to any systematic review by you or
your sponsor of these build-deps and of the process that led them to be
there, you removed only the ones that were explicitly indicated in the
bug report... :/
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
